Monday, September 01, 2008

Stealth Taqiyya: Uncover, then surgically detach.

The term stealth taqiyya may seem to be a redundancy, but what I am getting at is a particular type of taqiyya that is doubly clever.
Contrasted with ordinary taqiyya, by which a Muslim pretends to be nice and tolerant and makes claims that Islam is nice and tolerant, the practitioner of
stealth taqiyya goes further:

He begins by apparently conceding, or even going the extra mile to actually uncover, the seamy underside of Islam, its dark side. Then, deftly and cleverly, he uses his concession (or his uncovering) as a tool by which to surgically detach the dark side from Islam itself. This is far more effective than ordinary taqiyya, especially in a context where more and more Infidels are becoming suspicious of Muslims, and hunger for some unvarnished truth-telling about their growing suspicion of something deeply, and broadly, wrong with Islam. In this context, the stealth taqiyyist with one hand satisfies the Infidels hunger for truthand then, with the left hand, uses the Infidels satisfaction to subtly, even subliminally, reinforce the Myth of the Moderate Muslim Majority. The reinforcement achieved will be that much more effective when the taqiyyist has offered some tasty morsels firstmorsels that have the temporary appearance of indicting Islamrather than simply smiling and denying that there is anything wrong with Islam at all, as the ordinary taqiyyist does.

The Muslim reporter for the recent installment of the Undercover Mosque Dispatch out of the U.K. is, it is eminently reasonable to conclude, a stealth taqiyyist. While the benefits of this Undercover Mosque report are obviousnot only in uncovering the murderous hatred, intolerance and xenophobia in Islam, but also in uncovering it at a mosque (the large mosque at Regents Park in London) that was supposedly moderate and devoted to interfaith” seminarsthere are two things wrong with it which reveal its stealth taqiyya modus operandi:

1) The reporter herselfa Muslim who goes by the pseudonym Sara Hassanweaves into her report of the seamy, dark underside of the mosque which she infiltrated the claim that most Muslims are not at all like the fundamentalist Muslims she documented. She buttresses that claim with another claim, that male preachers she saw in another part of that mosque were preaching moderate content. However, she gives zero evidence for these claims. While she documents in detail the extremism of the objectionable sermons, she gives zero details about the supposedly moderate sermons. And note that the moderate sermons were conducted by males, by which most everyone would subliminally conclude that they were the more dominant part of that mosques activity. Sara Hassan thus weaves into her report the Myth of the Moderate Muslim Majority, and her own identity as one such moderate Muslimindeed, one courageous enough to go out on this limb of infiltrating a Muslim mosque!adds ostensible credibility to it.

2) Closely related to #1 is the frequent allusion in the report to the Saudis and Wahhabissubliminally reinforcing in the reader and viewer that the problem here is Saudi Wahhabism, rather than Islam itself. When she claims there were moderate sermons by male imams, she makes a point of saying they were Egyptianhence, not Saudi.


If Sara Hassan is doing taqiyya, it is quite a clever form of it: In effect what she is doing is satisfying the hunger that is growing more and more among Infidels for some unvarnished truth about Islamic extremismso she provides a hot and scandalous example of it in this project, the Undercover Mosque report. However, part and parcel with these tasty morsels for the hungering Infidel comes a packagenamely, that the extremism you see here represents a hijacking of true Islam, and only reflects a small minority. Thus the Myth of the Moderate Muslim Majority is reinforcedingeniously using damning evidence of the dark and seamy underside!rather than undermined.

The danger with reinforcing that Myth has the following effect:

It will serve (insofar as Western Infidels are gullible to it, and most seem to be) to bracket out the vast majority of Muslims from suspicion, thus allowing untold numbers among them to continue to infiltrate our West, either to continue to implement generalized stealth jihad in its various forms (not the least of which is the sheer demographic presence of multitudes of Muslims among us), or worse yetto network in various webs of passive enabling and active support of terrorist cells.

As long as the Infidel consumer digests the substance of the Undercover Mosque reports and reject Sara Hassans clever packaging, it constitutes an enormous boost for the War of Ideas portion of our larger rally to defend our West. Unfortunately, since PC MC remains dominant and mainstream, it is more likely that a majority of Westerners will swallow the whole thingincluding the edible, sugarcoated packaging.

Imagine George Bush, only one of the more famous Believers in the Myth of the Muslim Majority, watching the report. At the end of his viewing, were he asked for his two cents, he would undoubtedly say something like:

These are radical extremists, and they are a problem in our societies, but they are only a tiny minority who are trying to hijack the great and noble Religion of Peace, Islam. They are twisting the religion of the vast majority of peaceful Muslims, who are all moms and dads just like the rest of us!

Moral of the Story:

No Muslim can be trusted
not even the seemingly benign Muslim, and not even the one who seems willing to concede certain ugly data about certain Muslims.


Nobody said...

Even if it isn't stealth taquiyya, but Mohammedans genuinely interested in undermining the jihadis among them, it still ends up doing what you stated - creating an impression that a majority of Mohammedans are like this 'Sara Hassan', as opposed to an Abu Abdullah.

Another thing that this has brought me to think about is apostates out of Islam. Generally, most of us would agree that this subset of Muslims are the best and brightest from Islam. However, given that Mohammedans are also allowed to pretend to be apostates as a part of their taquiyya, it also results in an undefinable level of risk assumed when one accepts even such refugees: they could be a genuine Ali Sina or a Nonie Darwish, or they could be a Mohammed Atta: no real good way to know.

A part of me is willing to say that if a Mohammedan is genuinely willing to risk life and limb in jettisoning Islam, it behooves us Infidels to accept them into dar ul Harb, and take some risk ourselves. However, I could easily see the valid arguments against even such acceptances, given that nobody should be expected to put his/her life on the line for what's potentially a very high risk. However, to think that Mohammedans who see the evil in Islam and are willing to risk all to bail out of it would have no exit route is something tough for me to accept, although I do accept that Infidel lives are every bit as valuable as that of ex-Muslims.

But someone who chooses to stay Mohammedan? No way!

Vanishing American said...

I am glad that someone is saying these things; all too often, people take the 'apostate Moslem' at face value, without considering that they may have a hidden agenda.

I think even the genuine Moslem apostate, or those who are seemingly on our side, are actually aiding the jihadists unwittingly or indirectly. They do so by psychologically disarming us, leading us to hope or believe that most Moslems really are moderates or opponents of violence by their militant brethren. A few 'moderates' in our midst encourage us to keep on admitting more Moslem immigrants, and encourage us to hope that they will assimilate to us eventually. I've said that the 'moderates' in a sense pay the fare for the militants; they reduce our suspicion and increase our trust and gullibility. They provide a 'respectable' cover for the militants who do come to the West, even if they do so unwittingly.

Do we owe the apostates the right to immigrate here? Call me hardnosed, but I say not. There are many Moslem countries, some secularized, where these apostates could go and live beyond the reach of the repression of their home countries. Why must we put ourselves and our children's futures at risk in order to be altruistic? There are limits to altruism in today's dangerous world.

Hesperado said...

vanishing american,

I'd have to disagree on the apostate Muslims, for three reasons:

1) they are pretty much ignored by the PC MC mainstream, so they don't have the effect you are talking about, of making people gullible to an Islamic reform -- that's what the "moderate Muslims" are doing, and they, I agree, should be deemed to be dangerous

2) the apostates are such a tiny minority, they hardly constitute a danger

3) if the apostate communicates the message that Islam itself is the problem, they are valuable to us -- and it seems that quite a few of them do this -- Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (to a great extent, though not quite completely), Ibn Warraq.